Get curated active and upcoming crypto airdrops — 35 hand-verified entries with chain, status, eligibility info — Curated list of active airdrop opportunities. updatedAt reflects the last manual content revision, not request time. Cached ~1hr.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses caching (~1hr), update semantics (manual revision reflected in updatedAt), and that entries are hand-verified. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only or auth requirements. Key behavioral traits are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences: a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by essential behavioral details (caching, update semantics). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides key context: what the tool returns (airdrops with chain/status/eligibility), curation quality (35 hand-verified), and behavior (cached ~1hr, manual updates). Lacks explicit output format but is sufficient for decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. According to guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exists, which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'curated active and upcoming crypto airdrops', specifying it's hand-verified and includes chain, status, and eligibility info. It distinguishes itself from 50+ sibling tools, none of which focus on airdrops.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving airdrop opportunities, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. Since it is the only airdrop tool, the lack of exclusion is acceptable but still lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there are a few pairs with overlapping boundaries (e.g., analysts_signals vs analysts_signals_all, whale_movements vs whale_movements_summary) that could cause minor confusion.
Naming is predominantly snake_case and descriptive, with minor inconsistencies in plural/singular forms (e.g., 'analysts' vs 'analyst_archive'). Overall pattern is stable.
With 55 tools, the server is quite heavy. While the scope is broad, many tools are history/monthly variants that could be combined, making the count feel inflated beyond what is ideal for a single server.
The tool set covers a wide range of crypto analytics domains (analysts, arbitrage, funding, whales, sentiment, etc.). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct token price endpoint), but overall it's a comprehensive surface.